Dear Gian Piero and Simon, (01)
I addressed my previous note to Matthew, but I forgot to comment on your
notes, which Matthew was responding to. (02)
GPZ
> ... can you imagine a PRACTICAL system of reasonable dimensions where
> you are continuously obliged to create new individuals for specifying
> all the possible everyday behaviours of John (and of all the others)?
> The management of individuals is particularly tricky and costly in
> concrete KBs. (03)
There is a huge difference between individuals and types of individuals.
There are billions of individuals (AKA "named entities") that must be
considered in large databases and the WWW. Facebook alone recently
reached the milestone of a billion users, but they manage their types
and roles of users very well. (04)
Facebook doesn't do any deep reasoning, but Cyc has the largest formal
ontology on the planet. Their hierarchy includes all the types of
individuals, relations among individuals, and behaviors of individuals. (05)
In our work with conceptual graphs (at VivoMind), we maintain large
hierarchies of graphs, which we access in logarithmic time. We have
processed many terabytes of natural language text. Increasing the
numbers of types (i.e., labels on the nodes of the graphs) speeds up
the access time. If your system has difficulty with the number of
types, you should look for better algorithms. (06)
SS
> I thought I was being clever, letting meta-properties like "ferpa
> directory information release ok" be associated with these student objects.
>
> Sure, the existence of these role objects may have been rigidly dependent
> on the person job having at some point existed, but I had no idea this
> was so modally unacceptable. (07)
I prefer the term 'role type' to 'role object'. But there's no problem
in having a multiplicity of roles and reasoning about them. (08)
When we process and reason with natural languages, we put the concept
types for 'father' and 'student' in the same hierarchy with 'human'
or 'man'. We make note that there are relational and functional
characteristics of fathers and students that are not shared by
natural types like human or elephant. (09)
But that does not create any problems for the methods of analysis
or reasoning. With logarithmic algorithms, going from a thousand
types to a million types doubles the access time. No problem. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (012)
|